Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93352 Case Number: LCR14174 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: KILRUSH DISTRICT HOSPITAL LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
(i) Non payment of the minimum terms of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.), (ii) the reduction in working hours and (iii) withdrawal of paid lunch break.
Recommendation:
7. The Court finds that the approach of management in dealing
with the Union claims was not conducive to maintaining and
developing a good industrial relations environment. The Court
would recommend to the parties that they seek to establish a
grievance procedure which would include procedures for dealing
with disputes in accordance with accepted industrial relations
practice.
In respect of the claims, the Court recognises the constraints on
the hospital, and the laudable objectives of Board of Management
and the management. The Court, however takes the view that the
employees concerned are low paid and are such employees as were
considered by the authors of the P.E.S.P. when it was agreed to
institute the floor payments.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the floor payments should be
paid to the workers concerned from the due dates.
The question of the hours of work in the view of the Court should
be the subject of further discussions between the parties and in
the event of agreement not being reached should be referred to a
agreed third party.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93352 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14174
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: KILRUSH DISTRICT HOSPITAL LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (i) Non payment of the minimum terms of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.), (ii) the reduction in
working hours and (iii) withdrawal of paid lunch break.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1987, the Mid-Western Health Board announced the closure of
the Kilrush District Hospital with effect from August, 1987.
Shortly afterwards, a local committee representing the various
community organisations was established with a view to re-opening
the facility as a community hospital. A Company was formed and in
January, 1988 the Hospital was re-opened. The Company applied for
charitable status and this was granted in September, 1992.
The workers concerned are employed by the hospital as ward
attendants. In early 1992, they joined the Union and in March,
1992, the Union submitted a claim on behalf of the workers for
payment of the minimum increases as provided for under the terms
of the P.E.S.P. (The Hospital has applied the percentage increases
under the P.E.S.P.). In May, 1993, a meeting took place between
the parties but no progress was made. A invitation to attend at a
conciliation conference at the Labour Relations Commission was
declined by the hospital.
On 9th June, 1993 the Union referred the matter to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969
and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court
hearing took place on 28th July, 1993.
(i) Non payment of the minimum terms of P.E.S.P.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Payment of the annual increases with retrospection as
provided for under the terms of the P.E.S.P. should be made to
the workers concerned, having regard to the minimum payments
of:
#5.00 in the 1st year
#4.25 in the 2nd year
#5.77 in the 3rd year
2. The Company at one stage offered to consider paying the
1st phase of #5.00 without retrospection but only as part of a
package which would require the workers concerned to accept a
reduction in working hours.
3. Charges for patients at the hospital are substantially
lower than nursing homes in the area.
4. The workers concerned are the lowest paid of the category
in the country. The hospital is providing a cheap service at
the expense of the workers concerned.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company are paying the percentages as outlined in the
P.E.S.P. and are not in a position to pay more.
2. The Union's claim is that the cash minimum increases
should apply, as opposed to the basic percentage increases.
The Company's interpretation of this clause is that these cash
amounts could not should be applied, having regard to Clause 2
i.e. the economic and commercial circumstances of the
hospital. In the present financial circumstances the hospital
is not in a position to apply any discretionary or negotiable
aspects of the P.E.S.P., and, therefore, has applied the basic
terms only as per the strict wording of the P.E.S.P..
3. The hospital has operated on a non-profit making basis
since it opened in 1988. Most residents are not in a position
to pay more than their pensions. Company policy requests that
financial restraints would not be a consideration if a person
requires residential care. The hospital has maintained this
policy since 1988 and will continue to do so in the future.
4. The Hospital is providing much needed geriatric care for
the aged community of West Clare.
(ii) Reduction in working hours and (iii) withdrawal of paid lunch
break
When the hospital re-opened in 1988, the workers concerned
operated a 12 hour per day, 7 days per fortnight roster. The
Union are seeking a return to the roster that existed prior to
April, 1992 i.e. 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. inclusive of paid lunch break.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Subsequent to the Union's letter of March, 1992, the
hospital reduced the working hours of the workers concerned
and withdrew the concession of a paid lunch break.
2. The new roster reduces the pay of the workers concerned by
one hour per day, with no reduction in the workload.
3. Despite the fact that the number of working hours has been
reduced from 42 to 31.50 no corresponding reduction in the
workload occurred. Management are well aware of the situation
as evidenced by their application for Social Employment Scheme
funding to employ 12 additional non nursing staff.
4. The withdrawal of the .50 hour lunch break has not been
applied to other workers at the Hospital.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The entire funding for the Hospital is the responsibility
of the Company. Apart from three initial lottery allocations
and two Mid-Western Health Board donations, no funds have been
forthcoming from the state. No assistance towards the running
costs have been received in the past three years.
2. In the financial year ending 1991, the Company incurred a
deficit of #36,000.
3. In March, 1992, a meeting of all staff took place and the
financial position was discussed. It was decided that some
cost savings would have to be achieved. These decisions
included a change in the working hours from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
with a paid .50 hour lunch break, to 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 p.m.
to 6 p.m. The decision agreed affected all staff employed at
the Hospital.
4. It was agreed that the decisions taken were of a temporary
nature. The Board gave a guarantee at the meeting and
subsequently to the Union that if funds become available from
the Mid-Western Board or the Department of Health the
decisions taken would be reversed and current conditions
improved.
5. All staff at the hospital with the exception of the
workers concerned, are working the new schedule without
complaint.
6. The Company employs 29 people on a regular basis in a
country where unemployment is currently running at 35% in some
areas. The establishment of the facility to take care of the
elderly and the infirm of its community, has been a successful
venture by a dedicated voluntary group.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court finds that the approach of management in dealing
with the Union claims was not conducive to maintaining and
developing a good industrial relations environment. The Court
would recommend to the parties that they seek to establish a
grievance procedure which would include procedures for dealing
with disputes in accordance with accepted industrial relations
practice.
In respect of the claims, the Court recognises the constraints on
the hospital, and the laudable objectives of Board of Management
and the management. The Court, however takes the view that the
employees concerned are low paid and are such employees as were
considered by the authors of the P.E.S.P. when it was agreed to
institute the floor payments.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the floor payments should be
paid to the workers concerned from the due dates.
The question of the hours of work in the view of the Court should
be the subject of further discussions between the parties and in
the event of agreement not being reached should be referred to a
agreed third party.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
18th August, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.